Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2d 888
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-90-1672-N)
Aurelio Varela, appellant pro se.
E.D.Va.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Aurelio Varela appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241
petition as outside the scope of the writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons
stated, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
1. that he was arbitrarily charged with and convicted of fighting when he was,
in fact, simply defending himself from attack;
2. that he was arbitrarily convicted of being outside his assigned space despite
having permission to go outside that space and was placed in segregation where
he was subjected to harsh conditions of confinement;
3. that his parole date was rescinded with inadequate notice and after he had
waived an interim hearing.
Although we express no opinion on the merits of these claims, we find that, for
the most part, they state sufficient habeas claims to survive summary dismissal.
Section 2241 also provides the proper vehicle to challenge federal Parole
Commission action. See Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804
(D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc). A federal court may review Parole Commission
action for failure to comply with pertinent constitutional, statutory, or
regulatory provisions. Garcia v. Neagle, 660 F.2d 983, 988 (4th Cir.1981), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982).
10
Varela's third claim alleges that the Commission did not give him the notice
Varela's third claim also alleges that the Commission should have permitted
him to waive the interim hearing at which the rescission decision was made.
Although 18 U.S.C. 4208(a) permits a prisoner to waive a hearing, the
provision does not entitle a prisoner to evade rescission of his parole date. This
portion of his claim is without merit.
12
13